JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(2D).No.222 Revenue (Ser7(2)) Department dated 16.04.2010 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 31.03.2009 in Procgs.Ser.V(2) 72205/07 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner as Village Administrative Officer with all monetary benefits.) The relief sought in this writ petition is to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(2D).No.222 Revenue (Ser7(2)) Department dated 16.04.2010 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 31.03.2009 in Procgs.Ser.V(2) 72205/07 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner as Village Administrative Officer with all monetary benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 28.09.2005, while he was working as Village Administrative Officer at Moongilthuraipattu village, he was suspended for committing delinquency and for corrupt practices and on 30.09.2005, the petitioner has retired from his service. In regard to the delinquency and corruption committed by the petitioner, on 26.06.2006, a departmental enquiry was initiated by the third respondent. Thereafter, on 31.07.2006, a Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner. The three charges which were framed against him are as follows: (i) He has not got jurisdiction over the reporting of the birth which took place outside his jurisdiction, but, he entertained the information furnished by one Thiru.Narasimhan S/o. Krishnamoorthy, Moongilthuraipattu pertaining to the birth on 12.07.2004 of his grand daughter Kiruthika (daughter of his son Shanmugam and daughter in law Saraswathy) at JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry and prepared a false Birth Report by falsely mentioned Moongilthuraipattu as a birth place of Kiruthika under column G(2) of the Form-I, of Birth Report, though the said Narasimhan had specifically mentioned JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry to him as the birth place of Kiruthika and submitted the said false Birth Report to Taluk Office, Sankarapuram on 20.07.2004. (ii) Being a Public Servant, he has not got jurisdiction over the reporting of death which took place outside his jurisdiction, but, he entertained the information furnished by one Srinivasan S/o. Late Kannan, Moongilthuraipattu pertaining to the death on 19.01.2005 of his father Kannan at the Government Hospital, Pondicherry and prepared a false Death Report by falsely mentioning Moongilthuraipattu as the place of death of Kannan under column (5) (2) of the Form No.2 of the Death Report, though the said Srinivasan had specifically mentioned Government General Hospital, Pondicherry to him as the place of death of Kannan and submitted the said false Death Report to the Taluk Office, Sankarapuram on 24.01.2005. (iii) Being a Public Servant, he demanded bribe to 9 different persons on 12.04.2004 and obtained the same on 13.04.2004 at his room in Moongilthuraipattu for arranging the Patta. The amount and name of the persons from whom he received bribe are as follows: Sl. No. Name of the persons from whom the petitioner received bribe Amount received by the petitioner as bribe 1 Mr.Munusamy Rs.16,000/- 2 Mr.Subramani Rs.10,000/- 3 Mr.Chinnasamy Rs.14,500/- 4 Mrs.Alamelu Rs.15,000/- 5 Mr.Thirumalai Rs.5,000/- 6 Mr.Krishnan Rs.10,000/- 7 Mr.Raji Rs.2,000/- 8 Mr.Velayutham Rs.2,000/- 9 Mr.Veerasamy Rs.2,000/- 2.1. The departmental enquiry conducted by the third respondent was concluded on 11.04.2007. During the enquiry, on the side of the Department, 29 witnesses were examined and 53 documents were submitted and on the side of the petitioner, neither a witness was examined nor a document was submitted. 2.2. On 25.04.2007, the third respondent has submitted the Enquiry Report before the second respondent and who in turn, communicated the said Enquiry Report to the petitioner and calling upon him, to submit his explanation. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 26.12.2007. 2.3. Subsequently, the second respondent vide proceedings in Procgs.Ser.V(2) 72205/07 dated 31.03.2009, removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved over the proceedings issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal before the first respondent. But, the first respondent vide G.O.(2D) No.222 Revenue (Ser 7 (2) ) Department dated 16.04.2010, has confirmed the punishment order of the second respondent and dismissed the Appeal of the petitioner. Therefore, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. But, the first respondent vide G.O.(2D) No.222 Revenue (Ser 7 (2) ) Department dated 16.04.2010, has confirmed the punishment order of the second respondent and dismissed the Appeal of the petitioner. Therefore, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was suspended just two days prior to his superannuation and during the period of suspension as well as enquiry, no subsistence allowance has been paid to him. The third respondent has not conducted the departmental enquiry in a fair and proper manner, while so, on the basis of the Enquiry Report submitted by the third respondent, the second respondent has removed the petitioner from service. The first respondent has also confirmed the punishment of removal from service imposed by the second respondent. 3.1. The learned counsel further submitted that as far as Charge Nos.1 & 2 framed against the petitioner are concerned, the witnesses admitted in their evidence that while they submitting their application to the petitioner, they have not given a proper particulars to him for scrutinizing the place of birth and place of death. So far as Charge No.3 is concerned, P.W.4 himself categorically admitted that the Patta has been issued in the Taluk Office and the issuance of Patta is purely within the purview of the power of the Tahsildar. The petitioner has no power/jurisdiction to issue Patta. 3.2. The learned counsel also submitted that before imposing the punishment of removal of service on the petitioner, the second respondent has not issued any Show Cause Notice to the petitioner. Neither the first respondent nor the second respondent has granted an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. The orders issued by the respondents 1 & 2 are against principles of natural justice and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. 3.3. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the following decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court as well as other High Courts: (i) Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulabhia.M.LAD reported in (2010) 5 SCC 775 (ii) Captain M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., & Anr. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 (iii) Dr.Siddappaji vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 (iii) Dr.Siddappaji vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [Writ Petition No.8437 of 2019 (S-RES) dated 24.02.2020] [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] (iv) Jagat Nandan Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1908 of 2016 dated 18.09.2018] [PATNA HIGH COURT] (v) C.Mathesu vs. The Secretary to Government & Ors. [Writ Appeal No.2017 of 2011 dated 26.04.2013] [MADRAS HIGH COURT] (vi) State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. vs. R.Karuppiah & Anr. reported in 2005 (3) CTC 4 4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the third respondent has conducted the enquiry proceedings in a fair and free manner. Only after analyzing the depositions given by the prosecution witnesses, the third respondent has arrived at a conclusion that the charges which were framed against the petitioner have been proved. The charges framed against the petitioner are serious in nature and therefore, the second respondent has rightly imposed the punishment of removal of service on the petitioner. He further submitted that the statement made by the petitioner that he has defended the case effectively because of that he was not paid subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension, cannot be accepted since if it is so, he could have made this statement before the third respondent as well as the second respondent. He also submitted that there was no merit in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Hence, the first respondent has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. As far as this case is concerned, the petitioner was issued a Charge Memo, for the delinquency and corruption committed by him during his service. The three charges framed against the petitioner are viz., (i) He has prepared a false Birth Report to one Kiruthika by falsely mentioning her birth place and submitted the same before the Taluk Office, Sankarapuram on 20.07.2004 (ii) He has prepared a false Death Report to one deceased Kannan by falsely mentioning his death place and submitted the same before the Taluk Office, Sankarapuram on 24.01.2005. (iii) He has demanded bribe from 9 different persons on 12.04.2004 and obtained the same on 13.04.2004 at his room in Moongilthuraipattu for issuing the Patta. 7. (iii) He has demanded bribe from 9 different persons on 12.04.2004 and obtained the same on 13.04.2004 at his room in Moongilthuraipattu for issuing the Patta. 7. The above misconducts of the petitioner contravened Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973. A Departmental Enquiry was conducted by the third respondent, to enquire about the charges framed against the petitioner. During the said enquiry, the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. After the completion of enquiry, the third respondent has submitted his Enquiry Report, before the second respondent for passing final order under Rules 10(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (DPT Rules 1955). Based on the Enquiry Report submitted by the third respondent, the second respondent has imposed the punishment of removal of service on the petitioner, which was also confirmed by the first respondent. Hence, this writ petition. 8. The only grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing any Show Cause Notice to him, the second respondent has removed him from service. Even in the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(2D) No.222 Revenue (Ser 7 (2) ) Department dated 16.04.2010, it is stated that the second respondent has not issued second Show Cause Notice along with the Inquiry Report to the petitioner for submitting his explanation before imposing punishment of removal from service. It is also stated that the Enquiry Report of the third respondent has been communicated to the petitioner on 28.11.2007 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.12.2007. 9. From a perusal of the order passed by the first respondent, it is crystal clear and evident that prior to the passing of the punishment order, the second respondent has not issued any Show Cause Notice to him. 10. The second respondent ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. If a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner could have submitted his explanation for the charges framed against him. But, the second respondent has failed to do so. Further, it is to be noted that at the time of filing of this writ petition, the petitioner was 62 years old and now, he is 73 years old. So, the question of reinstatement does not arise. 11. But, the second respondent has failed to do so. Further, it is to be noted that at the time of filing of this writ petition, the petitioner was 62 years old and now, he is 73 years old. So, the question of reinstatement does not arise. 11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner: (i) In the case of Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulabhia.M.LAD reported in (2010) 5 SCC 775 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereunder: “9. The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters has come up for consideration before this Court time and again. It is worthwhile to refer to some of these decisions. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, this Court held: (SCC p. 762, para 18) “18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 10. In DG, RPF v. Sai Babu, this Court stated the legal position thus: (SCC p. 334, para 6) “6. … Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment in which the delinquent person concerned works.” 11. In United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, this Court on review of a long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarised the legal position in the following words: (SCC p. 376, paras 11-13) “11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. 12. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In the normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. 13. In the case at hand the High Court did not record any reason as to how and why it found the punishment shockingly disproportionate. Even there is no discussion on this aspect. The only discernible reason was the punishment awarded in M.L. Keshwani case. As was observed by this Court in Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of India Ltd. even if a co-delinquent is given lesser punishment it cannot be a ground for interference. Even such a plea was not available to be given credence as the allegations were contextually different.” 12. In Union of India v. S.S. Ahluwalia, this Court reiterated the legal position as follows: (SCC p. 261, para 8) “8. … The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. In Union of India v. S.S. Ahluwalia, this Court reiterated the legal position as follows: (SCC p. 261, para 8) “8. … The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”” (ii) In the case of Captain M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., & Anr. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: “32. The question whether the appellant was unable to go to Kolar Gold Fields to participate in the enquiry proceedings on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance may not have been raised before the enquiry officer, but it was positively raised before the High Court and has also been raised before us. Since it is not disputed that subsistence allowance was not paid to the appellant during the pendency of the departmental proceedings, we have to take strong notice of it, particularly as it is not suggested by the respondents that the appellant had any other source of income. 33. Since in the instant case the appellant was not provided any subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and the adjournment prayed for by him on account of his illness, duly supported by medical certificates, was refused resulting in ex parte proceedings against him, we are of the opinion that the appellant has been punished in total violation of the principles of natural justice and he was literally not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Moreover, as pleaded by the appellant before the High Court as also before us that on account of his penury occasioned by non-payment of subsistence allowance, he could not undertake a journey to attend the disciplinary proceedings, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer at such proceedings, which were held ex parte, stand vitiated.” 12. The non-issuance of the second Show Cause Notice to the petitioner before passing the order of removal of service is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and relevant rules and regulations in force on that date. 13. The non-issuance of the second Show Cause Notice to the petitioner before passing the order of removal of service is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and relevant rules and regulations in force on that date. 13. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, the issuance of the second Show Cause Notice is mandatory and in absence of the same, the order passed against the delinquent has to be set aside. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also, in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, this Court is inclined to quash the orders passed by the second respondent as well as the first respondent and partly allow this writ petition. 15. Accordingly, the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(2D).No.222 Revenue (Ser7(2)) Department dated 16.04.2010 as well as the order of passed by the second respondent in Procgs.Ser.V(2) 72205/07 dated 31.03.2009 are hereby quashed and this writ petition is partly allowed. No costs.